#SupremeCourt Bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao resumes the hearing on petition filed by the Madras Bar Association (MBA) assailing the Tribunal Rules of 2020 on grounds of being in violation of principles of separation of power.
Attorney General for India KK Venugopal begins making his submissions.
AG: Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew had upheld Section 184 of Finance Act in its entirety which says that the tenure should not exceed five years.
AG: Reappointment is by the same selection committee. This is an entirely safe procedure where if a member is writing judgements in time and is working with integrity, then the member can be reappointed.
AG reads the excepts from the Rojer Mathew judgment which dealt with the question of three year tenure for members of Tribunals noting that this duration for tenure may be suitable for retired Judges but not for practising advocates.
AG (On the issue of provision for housing for Tribunal members): If they are not accorded with the status of High Court Judges (as is held in Rojer Mathew) then I don't think they can ask for housing.
AG (On request for another Judge on the Search and Selection committee): There are 19 Tribunals, every time there is a vacancy that arises, it has to be filled then and there. Having one more Judge will affect the judicial functioning and judicial time.
Justice L Nageswara Rao: Why doesn't the government consider the National Tribunals Commission as was suggested in Chandra Kumar Judgment?
AG: I believe it will perhaps be a more conducive way for effective and independent functioning of Tribunals...
AG:... What I suggest is Your Lordships may suggest in favour of National Tribunals Commission again.
Justice Rao: Why don't you suggest it to the government, Attorney?
AG: I will certainly suggest it to the govt, but I suggest Your Lordships also reiterate this suggestion.
AG (On restrospectivity of the Rules): Rules of 2017 were completely struck down and a vacuum was created which was later filled by 2020 Rules.
(AG refers to provisions under Sections 183 and 184 of Finance Act)
AG: I have submitted the note with all these submissions.
So my submission is that the Rules may be allowed to stand.
(AG concludes his submissions)
(SC allows other Counsel to make submissions, but adds that the submissions of each person cannot be longer than 5 minutes)
Justice Rao: We want to wind up the arguments in this case today.
Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra for applicant Rachna Gupta (from CESTAT): My submission is only this that Rule 1(2) of 2020 Rules talk about date of coming to force as being 12 February, 2020.
It says they come into force on the date of their publication in gazette.
Luthra: They can't be applicable form the date of appointment at the time when the Rules did not exist.
Nowhere does it suggest that the Rules can be made restrospective.
Luthra: While S184 exists, Rules cannot be brought in restrosoectively.
(On facts) I can't be treated differently from those similarly placed.
Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan makes very brief submissions for an applicant.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna for a transfer petitioner: For new appointment under new Rules, the Advocate quota is debarred for DRT appointment.
For fresh selection, he may not be considered for DRT because Advocates are not considered.
Justice Rao: Please argue on law, Mr. Khanna. What you're saying is lawyers should be made eligible for DRT?
(Khanna answers in the affirmative)
Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok makes his submissions with respect to NCLT and NCLAT.
Chandhiok: NCLAT chairperson (Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) is due to retire and my submission is Your Lordships may protect their appointment till Your Lordships pass orders on this petition
Senior Counsel PS Narasimha: What S183 actually provides is from the appointed date, Central government can and is enabled to make Rules and if they are made, they will apply.
183 is only intended to talk about the power to make Rules.
#2G: Delhi High Court to shortly begin hearing appeals preferred by CBI and Enforcement Directorate against the acquittal of all accused in 2G Spectrum case.
Justice Brijesh Sethi is hearing the appeals on a day-to-day basis.
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and GS Kulkarni hears plea filed by Sameet Thakkar (accused of publishing objectionable caricatures against the Uddhav Thackeray Chief Minister of Maharastra) today.
Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Thakkar points out that a fresh FIR is filed with BKC police by same complainant.
Chandrachud seeks directions to the police to not arrest Thakkar as he is going to co-operate with the police and for a copy of the FIR be given to Thakkar.
Court notes that Thakkar had previously not co-operated with the police based on records which show there were several notices sent.
Chandrachud points out that as soon as the Court granted him protection from arrest, he appeared before the police station.
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik
of Bombay HC hear the plea filed by Wadhawan brothers (DHFL) challenging the arrest order of Sessions Court, Chennai, granting custody of the brothers to Economics Offences Wing (EOW) Chennai.
Desai points out to the court that the Sessions Court, Chennai granted an ex-parte order of custody without following the proper procedures given under CrPC.
He adds that both the brothers are now in the custody of Chennai police.
State informs the #BombayHighCourt , they are willing to increase no. of local trains. AG Kumbhakoni for State said: State is acting parens patriae.
Bench of Chief Justice and Justice GS Kulkarni hearing the matter pointed out that they can pass guidelines for safer travel.
AG Kumbhakoni for State argued that they were trying to open the sectors in a phase-wise manner so as to ensure there is no burden on the medical care facilities.
But since now, the number of affected people is reducing, they have started opening more sectors.
AG also pointed out that citizens are not strictly complying with social distancing rules.
Court: What have you done for the employees of restaurant and cinema?
Court asked State to assess new demands that will come up after opening of new sectors.
Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: This year has been the worst ever in conducting CLAT. This exam was conducted online
Justice Ashok Bhushan: This was a difficult year?
Sankaranaryanan: Other online exams were also held this year. CLAT consortium says 21,000 objections were recieved
Sankaranaryanan: In lot of questions, wrong model answers were given. Out of 40,000 objections, 20,000 were on question and answers. I am on the other 20,000. The cut off in this exam is not even 0 but -4. This is not only in this exam but in the history of any exam
Mumbai Police Commissioner has filed a case on criminal breach of trust. Says, will share the findings with the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry.